K.D. SHARMA, J.—Kishan Lal and 8 others have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court by way of an application under section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, dated June 6, 1981, by which the revisions application filed by Ladu Ram, complainant, was accepted and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 14, Jaipur City, dated October 21, 1980, was set saide and the learned Magistrate was directed to comply with the provisions of secs. 207 and 208, Cr.P.C. and to commit the 9 applicants to the court of the Sessions Judge under sec. 209, Cr.P.C. By this very order the learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail of all the applicants on the application of Ladu Ram for cancellation of bail. 2. The short facts giving rise to this application under sec. 482, Cr.P.C. are as follows:- 3. On July 13, 1973, Ram Lal son of Ladu Lal Shanka resident of Bodala, Jaipur, lodged a first information report with the police at police station Radar Jaipur, wherein it was alleged that Kishan Lal, Ram Prasad, Madan, Sita Ram and Hanuman applicants beat him and his brother Bhanvar Lal with lathis on a false pretext that the informant had damaged the electric bulb installed by the Government for light. On the basis of this report the police registered a criminal case under sections 323 and 147. I.P.C and took up usual investigation into the matter. After collecting necessary evidence the police filed a charge-sheet againast the aforesaid five applicants only under sections 147 and 323, I P.C. in the court of the Judicial Magistrate No 14, Jaipur City. Ram Lals father Ladu Ram, however, gathered an impression in the course of the police investigation that the police was not investigating the case in a fair and impartial manner against all the miscreants and so he filed a complaint under secs. 307, 148 read with 149, I.P.C. against the 9 applicants (1) including the five later on challaned by the police. The complaint was filed in the court of the Judical Magistrate No. 14, Jaipur City. The learned Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant on oath and recorded the evidence of his witnesses under sec. 202, Cr.P.C. After the preliminary inquiry the learned Judicial Magistrate considered the materials on the record and found sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicants under secs. The complaint was filed in the court of the Judical Magistrate No. 14, Jaipur City. The learned Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant on oath and recorded the evidence of his witnesses under sec. 202, Cr.P.C. After the preliminary inquiry the learned Judicial Magistrate considered the materials on the record and found sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicants under secs. 307, 148 read with sec. 149, I.P.C. and issued warrants of arrest to enforce their attendance. The applicants were arrested and brought before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who later on, on Oct. 21, 1980, heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the applicants and came to the conclusion that no prima-facie case under sec. 307, I.P.C. was made out against any of the applicants and so be proceeded to try the applicants for the offences under sections 147 and 323 I.P.C. only. The applicants, accordingly were released on pail. 4. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, dated Oct. 21, 1980, Ladu Ram filed a revision petition in the court of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. The revision petition was heard and decided by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, as stated above. As against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated June 6, 1981, the petitioners have moved this petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. 5. I have gone through the record and heard Mr. S.R. Surana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.D. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ladu Ram, and Mr. S.B. Mathur, Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. It has been vehemently contended before me by Mr. S.R. Surana, learned counsel for the petitioners, that there are no materials on the record in support of the charge of attempt to murder punishable under section 307, I.P.C. and the learned Judicial Magistrate committed no error in determining the question whether the offence under section 307 read with section 149, I.P.C. was or was not made out. Mr. S.R. Surana, learned counsel for the petitioners, that there are no materials on the record in support of the charge of attempt to murder punishable under section 307, I.P.C. and the learned Judicial Magistrate committed no error in determining the question whether the offence under section 307 read with section 149, I.P.C. was or was not made out. Mr. S.R. Surana further urged that even if the Judicial Magistrate was of the view at the time of issuing process against the petitioners that there were sufficient grounds for presuming that a case under section 307 I.P.C. was made out, he could reconsider the above view at the subsequent stage under Sec. 209, Cr.P.C. In support of his above contention, he relied upon an authority of the Allahabad High Court Mahesh Singh v. S.I. Jagdish Singh. (1) 7. Mr. S.D. Sharma and Mr. S.B. Mathur, Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, invited my attention to an authority of the Supreme Court Sanjay Gandhi vs. Union of India (2) and contended on the strength of the observations made therein on this point that the function to see whether there are materials to support the charges laid in the complaint now belongs to the Sessions Judge under Sec. 227, Cr.P.C. and the learned Judicial Magistrate was not empowered to sift and assess the evidence or the probabilities of the case. In short, they supported the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and further argued that no interference with it is called for in exercise of the inherent powers contained in Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. 8. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions mentioned above. At the outset, I may observe that under Sec. 209, Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is bound to commit the case to the court of Sessions provided it appears to him that the offence is triable exclusively by the court of Sessions. In other words, he has no option but to commit the case to the court of Sessions, according to Sec. 209, Cr.P.C. when an offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions Judge appears to have been committed. In other words, he has no option but to commit the case to the court of Sessions, according to Sec. 209, Cr.P.C. when an offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions Judge appears to have been committed. The pertinent question that requires determination, therefore, is what are the limits of his power who exercises under Sec 209, Cr.P.C. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the referred to above authority were pleased to make the following observations on this point; "In our view, the narrow inspection hole through which the committing Magistrate has to look at the case limits him merely to ascertain whether the case, as disclosed by the police report appears to the Magistrate to show an offence triable solely by the court of Sessions Assuming the facts to be correct as stated in the police report, if the offence is plainly one under Sec. 201, I.P.C. the Magistrate has simply to commit for trial before the court of Sessions. If, by error, a wrong section of the Penal Code is quoted, he may look into that aspect. Shri Mulla submits if the Magistrates jurisdiction were to be severely truncated like this the prosecution may stick a label mentioning a sessions offence (if we may use that expression for brevitys sake) and the accused will be denied a valuable opportunity to prove his ex facie innocence. There is no merit in this connection. If made-up facts unsupported by any material are reported by the police and a Sessions offence is made to appear, it is perfectly open to the Sessions Court under Sec. 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge the accused. This provision takes care of the alleged grievance of the accused." Consequently, in view of the observations made above by their Lordships, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 14, Jaipur City, on October 21, 1980, was clearly erroneous, because he was not empowered under section 209, Cr.P.C to weigh the probabilities of the evidence of the case in confirming the opinion whether the charges laid in the complaint disclosed an offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. It was not open to him even to see whether on the materials on the record did or did not support the charges because such a function has been assigned under section 227, Cr.P.C. to the Sessions Judge. It was not open to him even to see whether on the materials on the record did or did not support the charges because such a function has been assigned under section 227, Cr.P.C. to the Sessions Judge. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. 14, Jaipur City, has not given out reasons even for holding that no prima facie case under Sec. 307, Cr.P.C. was made out against any petitioner. He took cognizance upon the complaint against the petitioners under Secs, 307, 148 read with Sec. 149, I.P.C. and issued process against them after a preliminary enquiry On October 21, 1980, when the petitioners were brought under arrest to his court, he changed his former view for reasons best known to him and passed an order that no case is made out under Sec. 307, I.P.C. against any petitioner. The order passed by him reads as follows : ^^ifjoknh dk odhy gkftjA leLr 9 eqyfte ih-lh- ls gkftjA mHk; i{k dh cgl dk lquk x;kA fnukad 10-10-80 dks vknsk ,d i{k ,DlikVhZ dks lqu dj fn;s x;s es vkt nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl dks lquus ls Li"V gS fd ekeyk 307] vkbZ-ih-lh- ds vUrxZr ugha curk gSA ;g ekeyk izFke n`"V;k 146] 323] vkbZ-ih-lh- dk gh curk izrhr gks jgk gSA eqyfteku tekur eqpyds rknknh 1000½ :i;s isk dj fjgk jgsA vknskkuqlkj tekur eqpyds isk gq,A Lohd`r o izekf.kr fd;s eqyfteku dks tekur ij fjgk fd;kA i=koyh fu;r rkjh[k fnukad 9-12-80 dks isk gksA** The Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, was justified in reversing this order of the Judicial Magistrate in revision. 9. The next contention of Mr. S.R. Surana, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in cancelling the order of bail granted to the petitioners by the Judicial Magistrate in the absence of any ground justifying rejection The above contention is not devoid of substance, because once the Judicial Magistrate exercised his discretion in favour of the petitioners and enlarged them on bail, it was not open for the Additional Sessions Judge to cancel the bail except on cogent and sufficient grounds. In the present case, there are no good grounds for cancellation of the bail and, therefore, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, so far as it relates to the cancellation of the bail of the petitioners, cannot be upheld and is set aside. 10. In the present case, there are no good grounds for cancellation of the bail and, therefore, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, so far as it relates to the cancellation of the bail of the petitioners, cannot be upheld and is set aside. 10. The result of the above discussion is that the application filed by the petitioners under sec. 482, Cr.P.C. is accordingly shortly accepted. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, dated June 6, 1981, directing the Judicial Magistrate No. 14. Jaipur City to comply with the provisions of secs. 207 and 208, Cr.P.C. and to commit the petitioners to the court of Sessions as provided under sec. 209, Cr.P.C. is confirmed. The other part of his order regarding cancellation of the bail of the petitioners is set aside. The petitioners shall remain on the bail bonds already submitted by them.